The map & pie chart almost look like decisions are being made so as to adversely effect whether people vote Labour

See my previous post. Surely an endeavour to correct major imbalances.

Quote ="Dally"So, DGM so are trying to correct this huge imbalance hey? That's unfair is it? www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... endin.html'" That question doesn't even make sense, what are you going on about? Do you even understand the map on that link (from 8 and a half years ago)? It's public spending as a % of GDP in that area. WE ALL KNOW London has a much higher GDP per capita than anywhere else, it's not news to anyone, you've not made any kind of point there, and it's probably to do with decades of London-centric governments pumping money in and legislating in London's favour. The reality is quite the opposite to what you're asserting really - the spending levels vs GDP from that 2008 map ARE "correcting the huge imbalance". The huge imbalance was already there Dally, following decades of underfunding and legislation that crippled those areas.

Quote ="Dally"So, DGM so are trying to correct this huge imbalance hey? That's unfair is it? www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... endin.html'" That question doesn't even make sense, what are you going on about? Do you even understand the map on that link (from 8 and a half years ago)? It's public spending as a % of GDP in that area. WE ALL KNOW London has a much higher GDP per capita than anywhere else, it's not news to anyone, you've not made any kind of point there, and it's probably to do with decades of London-centric governments pumping money in and legislating in London's favour. The reality is quite the opposite to what you're asserting really - the spending levels vs GDP from that 2008 map ARE "correcting the huge imbalance". The huge imbalance was already there Dally, following decades of underfunding and legislation that crippled those areas.

I see your mate Dally obliged.

If they invested as much in those areas as they did in London there wouldn't be such "imbalances".

Us nasty, right wing, bigoted Bexiteers. I voted to stay in the EU!!

Oh Boy! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... brexit-row Another toff falls on his sword, will he be vilified as another enemy of the people?

Oh Boy! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... brexit-row Another toff falls on his sword, will he be vilified as another enemy of the people?

Quote ="The Devil's Advocate"Oh Boy! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... brexit-row Another toff falls on his sword, will he be vilified as another enemy of the people?'" It depends on who you want to listen to. Farage doesn't think too much of him and he seemed very happy to see him go. However, toff or otherwise, he was considered to be the best that we (the UK) had to deal with negotiations and it appears that maybe, those paying his wages, didn't like what he was telling them. IF he was the best person for that role, necessarily, the person stepping into his shoes wont be quite as good and in this respect, we may end up worse off. As I said, it depends who you want to listen to. The one certainty is that leaving the EU, whilst simple in theory is far from straight forward. Untangling 40 years of ties was never going to be easy, unless we have bottomless pockets and even more money to burn. The other comment about a lack of plan and strategy from the government, regarding a Leave vote, is just shocking. Cameron must have told "his people" not to bother as "we" would vote remain.

Quote ="The Devil's Advocate"Oh Boy! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... brexit-row Another toff falls on his sword, will he be vilified as another enemy of the people?'" It depends on who you want to listen to. Farage doesn't think too much of him and he seemed very happy to see him go. However, toff or otherwise, he was considered to be the best that we (the UK) had to deal with negotiations and it appears that maybe, those paying his wages, didn't like what he was telling them. IF he was the best person for that role, necessarily, the person stepping into his shoes wont be quite as good and in this respect, we may end up worse off. As I said, it depends who you want to listen to. The one certainty is that leaving the EU, whilst simple in theory is far from straight forward. Untangling 40 years of ties was never going to be easy, unless we have bottomless pockets and even more money to burn. The other comment about a lack of plan and strategy from the government, regarding a Leave vote, is just shocking. Cameron must have told "his people" not to bother as "we" would vote remain.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... onths.html This lot don't seem to bothered

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... onths.html This lot don't seem to bothered

I cant believe that a pro leave newspaper would print such an article



As I said, it depends on your view point as to whether or not the guy was any good but,
nobody would employ him in that role if he was as bad as "your" article suggests.
Therefore, you have to try and read between the lines and it seems obvious that he believes things
to be far more complicated than Farage, who doesn't seem bothered about our prosperity as long as we are out
of the EU.

As I understand it, Cameron didn't tell "his people" not to bother with a back up plan, but, told the Civil Service (they should be policy rather than politically driven) not to bother with a back up plan, as this (nonsensically IMO) would look like leaving was a real option and offer it support rather than him thinking staying in was a done deal.

A subtle difference, but, plain daft

theresa with abit more news today for us

aiming to come out of the single market

I like the idea of crushing the EU into tiny pieces.

She is going to deliver what the majority of voters wanted, which you can't hold against her.

Managed migration = no free movement of services/goods. If that's what the Germans want they can have it.

How do you or anyone know what the majority wanted? Due to Cameron's stupidity - the choice was binary - in or out. It didn't tell us any more than that.

I know a fair few people, mainly OAPs, who voted purely on the grounds of saving the NHS and couldn't care less about either the single market or immigration. Remove those who were duped by the £350 million to the NHS claim and suddenly the majority vanishes (maybe?).

Of course 'leave' won the referendum and so the unelected (so much for getting back control) Prime Minister must now negotiate British withdrawal from the EU. But don't pretend to know what the majority wanted because I'm afraid it is quite simply impossible for anyone to know, despite what politicians tell us.

You mean like the unelected Cameron, Brown, Blair ...

We do not elect our PM in this country.

Cant agree with that.
Nobody voted for May to be leader of the Countr but, everyone, who voted at the time, knew that we wre getting Blair & Cameron, as they were the leader of the party that won most parliamentary seats.
Of course, when we cast our vote, it's to elect a local member of parliament and not directly for the leader but, I dont think that you can say that nobody voted these people in.
May, of course, was only elected by her party.

I think that there is an element of posturing in May's speech today.
She has to paint her position as black and white and then await the response of our "friends" in the EU.

It will be very interesting if The EU play "hard ball".
To potentially take a risk with The UK largest and closest trading ally is utterly bonkers.
I know that the same could be said of The EU but, we (the UK) are putting them in a position whereby they wont allow a free trade deal, if only to deter other members from leaving the EU.
Sure it will cost them but, I'm not sure what choice they have.

The EU survives via high taxation and spending. May's prime threat it to cut UK taxes to such levels that the EU cannot survive in its current form.

Yes, I understand the theory.
However, with the UK being such huge net importer, i'm not sure that the cards are stacked in our favour and we're "falling out" with our largest and nearest customer and supply base and there is a fundamental argument, which EVERY politician has publicly ignored and that is IF the UK is successful in negotiating favourable trade deals with the rest of the world (outside the EU) and we cut our raw material costs substantially, where are we intending to sell our new low cost products ?

There is now way whatsoever that The EU will allow the UK to sell cheap products into the euro zone if these are made using "cut price" imported products with lower (or zero) import tariffs from India, China etc if they are deemed to affect trade within The EU.

So therefore, we MAY be able to import some cheaper produce from outside the EU, which will be advantageous for domestic "consumption" but, then what ?

I know there is the argument about German cars etc but, what do people really think will happen.
Just imagine if the situation were reversed, we would do anything and everything to "get even" but, we are not the major player in all this.

Given we bought 2.7 million cars last year , I'd guess 2 million from Europe , at say an average 20K each , that's 40 billion a year , so 800 million pounds a week

Are they going to bang big tariffs on our exports ?

Yes, that's how the Common External Tariff works in the absence of single market membership. Non-preferential countries trading with the EU currently face a 10% tariff on car exports. The EU do it with plenty of other countries and this is our default position until a trade agreement is set up, once we leave the single market. From this point, a trade agreement takes years, with each EU member (and even some regions) having a veto over it. The EU Canada free trade agreement commenced negotiations in 2009 and has only been signed in the last few months, having narrowly avoided a veto by the regional government of Wallonia.

The whole idea is that the EU is economically stagnant and it is the UKs interests to attempt to sell to the areas of the world driving economic growth - eg India, China, SE Asia, North America and Middle East.

You've actually just made a good point for leaving , so a region of a small European country can stuff up lucrative deals for everybody else ? , that great Innit

Fine they can stick tariffs on stuff , and we'll just do the same , no worries

I quite enjoyed TRESemme's media appearance.

Not for the fact she looks like John Major's animated corpse sister.

Not even the vague objectives.

Just the fact she actually answered a question, albeit not regarding the subject at hand.

Some hack slipped in a question about a two state solution & she actually said the Yes word.

It's a funny old world.